News & Analysis
Central Banks Won't Produce Natural Interest
The Bank of England should raise interest rates next week ... Most people that read finance columns have heard of the "natural rate of unemployment", and many will know that the term was introduced by Milton Friedman. But far fewer will know where he got the term. He said himself, in his Nobel Prize lecture, that "The 'natural rate of unemployment' [is] a term I introduced to parallel Knut Wicksell's 'natural rate of interest'". But who was Knut Wicksell and what is the "natural rate of interest" – and does it matter? We shall see that it does indeed matter, and tells us something important about current UK monetary policy and the outlook for the UK economy and George Osborne's chances of delivering his fiscal plans ...Three years, now, at 0.5 percent, and counting. That compares with a natural rate of interest that was about 5 percent when times were better and will be around 3-3.5 percent now. (Essentially, add the 2.5 per cent RPI inflation rate that's about the target to the 1 percent or so sustainable growth rate, and you get a decent guess at the natural rate.) Having interest rates so far below the natural rate damages the sustainable growth rate of the economy. – UK Telegraph/ Andrew Lilico
Dominant Social Theme: We just have to figure out what's natural and then fake it.
Free-Market Analysis: Here comes Andrew Lilico, an economist with Europe Economics, and a member of the Shadow Monetary Policy Committee, according to the UK Telegraph (see article above).
The gibberish contained in the above excerpt is only magnified throughout the article. It is really incredible. What is it about price fixing that such intelligent commentators don't understand?
If you artificially set a price by force – and this is what central banks do – then that price is almost bound to be incorrect. Only the market itself can generate a "natural" rate of interest or determine monetary volume.
That's because the market itself is competitive. The "Invisible Hand" of competition creates naturally fluctuating interest rates and the appropriate volume of money stuff.
This is why monetary competition historically yields up evermore efficient and healthy money. People voluntarily choose the kind of money they want and the volume of money as well.
Within this context, gold and silver have proven to be a historically popular money stuff. Used with each other, gold and silver provide a ratio. If the ratio becomes distorted, people can tell that someone is trying to manipulate the market. This called bi-metalism.
Greenbackerism has made a startling comeback of late, which we have long predicted, citing Ellen Brown's effective boosting of the idea that government ought to have the sole franchise to print money.
But regardless of whether a mercantilist public/private body like the Bank of England or Federal Reserve prints paper-fiat money, or a fully public enterprise, such as those found in India or China, the problem of the natural rate and volume remains. Once human beings arrogate to themselves such decisions, money itself cannot help but be distorted.
Both India and China are now suffering from vigorous price inflation. That's because when human beings have a monopoly of something, it will inevitably be abused. It is impossible to expect mere flesh and blood not to print too much money. Money buys all kinds of fun, especially for those in control of it.
Over time, even within a competitive monetary environment, government eventually prints too much paper money, eventually debasing it. As this paper money became cheapened, people seek not to hold it, and try to get rid of it.
This is why schemes like Greenbackerism tend to lead to government consolidation of money authority. As people reject government money, those in charge gradually mandate its use. Within historical contexts, there tends to be an expansion of force as people are compelled to use what they would otherwise reject.
There are arguments that certain kinds of government monopoly money have proven more effective than other kinds. Ellen Brown, Bill Still and others argue that tally sticks were a wonderfully effective government initiated money that helped England build an empire.
But from our point of view this is perhaps a misreading on several fronts. First of all, there is nothing all that admirable about an empire. Societies tend to flourish, as we have often pointed out, when they are separate and singular but gathered closely together.
This allows people to travel from one place to another nearby place if they are being oppressed. Gradually over time, a culture of freedom is established as governments compete with one another to provide environments that are attractive and laissez faire.
Many great cultures have been established within this context. Rome had its Seven Hills, the Greek Golden Age and the Renaissance had city states, the United States had "these" united States.
Over time, consolidation usually takes place and gradually what was free and innovative becomes less so. Eventually dirigisme and socialism may set in.
Gradually the leaders of the consolidated country begin to become aggressive and to focus on outside threats to distract attention from an increasingly failed society. This is the empire phase.
It is unfortunate that most of history focuses on the "greatness" of empire when in fact, an "empire" is symptomatic of societal sickness not health.
During the tally stick era in Britain, Kings – having access to the money supply – apparently borrowed against the stock of tally sticks considerably for purposes of waging war. Not only that, but as tally sticks were generated to pay taxes, the volume of the money supply was seemingly artificially restricted.
This was great for those who controlled tally sticks – the ruling class – because an artificially restrained money deprived people of capital and likely had a retardant effect on social mobility and individual economic potential. Tally sticks were a perfect money for the elites.
There is seemingly no substitute for competitive money and for the Invisible Hand setting the volume and price of money. In economies that use gold and silver, hoarding and dishoarding sets the price of market money, along, perhaps, with the opening and closing of mines, depending on how much gold and silver is circulating. This is one reason why precious metals have been successful as money throughout history.
In the modern era, central banking has taken over the world – and the result is general catastrophe and ruin. This is only to be expected. It is in fact what those behind the system are intending to create.
The power elite that has seemingly installed modern monopoly fiat money – and the dollar reserve system itself – apparently seeks to build world government. It needs to foment economic turmoil and wars in order to move society toward one-world money.
Central banking is key to this strategy. The more monetary price fixing there is, the more economic chaos and catastrophe takes place. It is a closed loop, a virtuous circle from the power elite point of view.
The elites spend an enormous amount of time trying to justify central bank price fixing. It is one of their biggest dominant social themes – that only a handful of good, gray men can manage the economy and make decisions for everyone else.
Andrew Lilico wants us to believe that central banks ARE capable of mimicking natural rates of money production. In truth, there is no "natural interest rate" or rate of monetary production that human beings are EVER capable of creating.
Even if the top people at these monopoly money banks were capable of figuring out where the price and volume of money could be, there is no guarantee that they would generate the correct prices over time.
They would use their power for their OWN benefit. As indeed they have. We can see it clearly, even today. What misery there is in the world.
Conclusion: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted by memehunter on 04/02/12 01:08 PM
Your example of "natural interest" may work with living creatures, but it will not work with everything. Many (most?) material possessions don't behave like mares and cows.
Also, since you seem to think that there is such a thing as a natural rate of interest, what do you think about Silvio Gesell's basic point that, given that most things in this world tend to decay/die/oxidize, it would be natural to use a currency whose value also decreases with time, so as to mimic the natural rate of decay of most material things and to ensure that the monetary plane does not unduly dominate and control the physical plane?
Gesell's ideas have proven to be successful in practice, with the Wörgl experiment. You might say that this was on a limited scale, and I would agree. Unfortunately, central bankers and Money Power were apparently not too keen on seeing this idea being implemented elsewhere (not unlike your RBD currency, perhaps?).
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/02/12 01:03 PM
MH: 'What do you have against interest-free money, Abu?'
AA: Nothing - as long as I or others are not FORCED to participate. This goes for ANY form of voluntary contract, money and/or interest, as far as I'm concerned. The problem with your 'model' - in fact with your entire approach - is, that it is in 'need' to use force to coerce others - a 'minimum of coercion' as you call it. THAT'S what I have against it.
MH: 'Several interest-free currencies have been, and are currently, relatively successful without any CJG (coercion/jail/guns). It is a strawman to repeatedly associate interest-free currencies with CJG.'
AA: No, it's not. I was merely quoting YOUR WORDS about the need for coercion. You remember your own words, do you?
MH: 'And now your solution: "Hate the State", get rid of the government, and let the FREE MARKET take care of everything. The law of the jungle, basically. That would certainly solve all our problems... '
AA: Well, that's one of the problems with people who babble on and on about an entire school of thought while 'being proud' of their 'ignorance' about it.
Here's Murray Rothbard for you:
'A common charge against the free-market society is that it institutes "the law of the jungle," of "dog eat dog," that it spurns human cooperation for competition, and that it exalts material success as opposed to spiritual values, philosophy, or leisure activities. On the contrary, the jungle is precisely a society of coercion, theft, and parasitism, a society that demolishes lives and living standards. The peaceful market competition of producers and suppliers is a profoundly cooperative process in which everyone benefits, and where everyone's living standard flourishes (compared to what it would be in an unfree society). And the undoubted material success of free societies provides the general affluence that permits us to enjoy an enormous amount of leisure as compared to other societies, and to pursue matters of the spirit. It is the coercive countries with little or no market activity, notably under communism, where the grind of daily existence not only impoverishes people materially, but deadens their spirit'
Click to view link
Posted by memehunter on 04/02/12 12:43 PM
I have already dealt with your points 1 to 4. Regarding your point 1, I do object to your roundup, and I have noted that you seem unable to distinguish between Judaism and Zionism. For points 3 and 4, you ignore the Jesuit a.k.a Illuminati and Satanic influences on Libertarianism and Austrianism, as well as the connections between top power elites such as the Rockefeller and leading Austrian economists.
More generally, my articles (especially the "Catholic" Wing of Libertarianism and the Satanic Core of Libertarianism) address several ideological issues, for instance about usury and individual freedom, in a way that you seem unable to grasp. You also seem to overlook or neglect that Libertarianism and Communism are the two poles of a centuries-old dialectic engineered by the elites, which was perhaps the most important take-home message of this series of articles.
I don't feel that your "four basic points" are in any way an accurate summary of my articles, even if I don't disagree with your points 2 and 3 per se.
Even though I do not endorse your summary, I do think that my points can be summarized in a few hundred words (though 4 points are not enough to provide an accurate roundup, I am afraid), but maybe that is a not a bad thing. Why make things needlessly complex if the core issues are relatively simple? And, by the way, the DB's core points on monetary matters could also probably be summarized in a few hundred words.
What do you have against interest-free money, Abu? Can you explain? Can you justify the existence of interest-bearing debt-based currencies? Do you consider "paper gold" schemes to be honest? I know, that's a lot of questions at once, but it's only fair to put you on the spot once in a while, isn't it?
Several interest-free currencies have been, and are currently, relatively successful without any CJG (coercion/jail/guns). It is a strawman to repeatedly associate interest-free currencies with CJG.
And now your solution: "Hate the State", get rid of the government, and let the FREE MARKET take care of everything. The law of the jungle, basically. That would certainly solve all our problems...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/02/12 11:14 AM
Let's make a deal, Ingo: We meet at Newts house. You bring 1 g of gold, and I bring 6 bottles of concentrated Liquid Tide - the one who gets the first photo with Newt wins.
Click to view link
Posted by Bischoff on 04/02/12 10:57 AM
"... However, if some people at some point decide that coconuts or liquid Tide or whatever suits them better ... "
Yes, dream on. I guess, then all the vaults in the world will be full of coconuts and liquid Tide, instead of gold... Right... ???
Posted by amanfromMars on 04/02/12 10:49 AM
Here's how things used to work in the dark ... ... ... ... . http://youtu.be/7MRykTpw1RQ ... ... .. whenever this revelation was too unbelievable and too true ... ... ... http://youtu.be/ukpsdzjl9jc
Posted by Bischoff on 04/02/12 10:40 AM
Please, somebody help me. What did the Mars Man just say... ???
All I undertood was that I opened a can of worms. Yes, I intended that. What followed was entirely incomprehensible to me. Can anybody interpret it for me... ???
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/02/12 10:15 AM
Banksy - Special Edition: Click to view link
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/02/12 10:14 AM
And my currency idea is not really MY idea.
We stumbled upon how to initiate a new currency as a possible solution from our talking here and there, everyone talking here on this site . . . above all . . . by LEARNING and doing.
We shroud our world in a story, meandering through time and space, ending up, as it seems right now, at The Orwell Prize.
George Orwell: a man's life ended in his prime . . . man who only saw dystopia . . . a man who, had he lived longer, would have seen his dream come true . . . he would have seen through his dystopia to utopia.
Orwell: 'What I have most wanted to do . . . is to make political writing into an art.'
But what would utopia look like to George Orwell?
ARG MetaPhoria . . . turning apolitical writing into artwork.
George Orwell should be turning in his grave right about now . . . we are making our prescience known on his dystopian website.
Now I know why I sent a message to Gaby Hinsliff, a past judge on The Orwell Prize.
Posted by amanfromMars on 04/02/12 09:41 AM
Hi, Bischoff, You really have opened up a can of worms here on this thread. Thanks for that. It is just what is needed in these dire straits times, when all are told there is no money and yet trillions are invented and instantly transferred and deposited to favoured accounts at a whim/on a suggestion.
You really do have to open your mind to the simplest of real solutions to what are artificial created virtual problems, with the inequitable supply and interrupted distribution of pretty paper promissory notes/legally tendered currency for the exchange of goods and services being one of the easiest to resolve, and at practically zero cost.
Agent Weebley's idea [in both its guises] has certain definite merit ... .. "Money needs to be created at cost (cost of printing) and given away equally to 7 billion people . . . problem solved. This new money needs to be created by a group that knows they are [not] the centre of the universe . . . keeps everyone humble . . ya know?" ... ... and is incredibly far sighted and not all outrageously dumb and well worth a master pilot with tuned in players to explore the collateral implications whenever the supply of money/global credit is always turned on and free. We have all been told that we are all born into this world free and with nothing but there is absolutely nothing to stop us revising that hoary old tale and realising a new dawn and enlightened constructive age with everyone being told that they are all born into this world with its myriad worlds, rich, and with everything provided for free, with the exchange of pretty printed paper merely donating the notional price that would be required in the making of an item or in the supplying of a service, should one wish to load nations and peoples with debt and create divisions and conflicts and rich and poor.
Now that latter system is the one which is so outrageously dumb, is it not, and not the former one, which allows everyone to pursue their dreams and create whatever is needed for everyone in a Brave New Orderly World Order.
We all know that fools play God with the choked supply of money, realising that there is an artificial power in its control and an ignorant mass perceived indebtedness to those institutions and wannabe Godlike players, but they are truly delusional in that, aren't they, or is there more than just an element of truth in the matter which would extraordinarily render religion somewhat of a fools' calling and a scam too?
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/02/12 09:13 AM
Banksy: Click to view link
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/02/12 08:58 AM
It's high time I do what I used to do, which is type in MSword, paste the finished product into the little tiny box, and then press 'post.' My spelling errors, like lightly, instead of slightly . . . whare, instead of where . . . they bother me to no end. So that is what I'm doing once again.
You also seem to delight in demeaning me to no end. I say 'to no end,' because I have no idea why you do it. Maybe it is a self-protection thing? Anyway, that is not why I am posting yet another message to you . . . or is it to you? If it is a message not to you, but everyone, is anyone listening? Or am I shouting into the wind?
I ended off last time with a 'Natural Law, Hosea and steadfast' flagellum . . . or is it flagella; a whip to give me motion onto another distinct and separate issue that really needs to be dealt with?
You said about me yesterday:
'Often the comments by Weebley are so outrageously dumb, that you have to suspect he is putting you on. Nevertheless, the DB seems to find usefulness in such psycho babble. Useful for whom, I ask you... ... .????'
DB puts up with me, I think, because I speak peacefully for the most part. The only axe I have to grind is not looking at yourself as the main stumbling block to enlightenment as to the truth about why we are in the boat we are in here on this planet. I find contradictions everywhere. Facing your contradictions is paramount to understanding that preconceived ideas or prejudgments are a safety mechanism to protect you from having to continue to think, so you can go through life in a happy little box that you yourself tied up with a pretty little bow.
Question why you are questioning everything, is what Zeno Of Elea might say.
But, since I am eating up true/false gates with no apparent point to it, I must immediately get onto the subject of this thread, which is 'natural interest rates.' You stated that the natural interest rates are 2.5 to 3%, rather than the suppressed rate of 1/8%. Really, Ingo? A guy who wants to buy a car that went bankrupt a couple of years ago should get a rate of 2.5 to 3%? Or are you speaking of the central bank prime rate. The banks make a margin on rates. It used to be 1 point above central bank prime rate, but it jumped 50% to 1.5 points above central bank prime rate a few years back. Fargin' bastages.
If there is no central bank, and we are speaking about individual investors, then the competition to lend money is tempered with the risk of losing some or all of the investment to a person who defaults. Each deal must be taken separately, based on the merits of the borrower, the competition to lend your savings and the amount of money the lender has . . . how much risk the lender can stomach. Coupled with risk is reward. The higher the risk, the higher the reward should be.
So when you speak about a joyous 2.5 to 3% interest rate, I can't stomach letting that go without explaining to you that a 'natural interest rate' is whatever the rate is for a particular transaction at a particular time, by a particular lender, to a particular person.
Dictating a 'natural interest rate' is either some sort of political selling tool that will make your 'Real Bills Doctrine' seem cool and helpful, or it is just another one of your steadfast prejudgments that you cannot seem to let go, when a contradiction looms, causing you to re-think everything you have ever assimilated into your world view . . . a view known as 'the truth.'
I was one of the early adopters here on this wonderful site to question your 'world view,' to the point that I would engage you to your 'ad hominem level.' You would always be the person to end the conversation. Real Bills, Natural Law, Aboreal Beginnings . . . man, I love talking to you! You have such a Rigid world view that I can't help but thread those pan pipes you play, joining them with 90s, tees, and nipples. And do you know what it looks like now . . . the 'pipes' screensaver from way back. Weaving all over the place; it looks like spaghetti.
Oh, oh . . . I am digressing.
Steadfastness in a 'world view' is damaging to you and others if they believe what you are saying. It is really just concrete thinking. People are concrete thinkers when they are young. Remember telling your kid to 'pull their socks up?' They looked down!
Copernicus wasn't steadfast! He just believed something to be true, and found no contradictions to prove otherwise. He must have listened to others when he told them what he had discovered, and countered everything they said with the facts, or used what they said to delve deeper and found more to support what he had already found.
So now, I must wind this up, as my column inches, and people's patience to read long-winded thought must be nearing the end.
Oh, I did not cover off Hosea. If you believe in Natural Law, which seems to be some sort of mid-sixties FlowerPower religion, then why are you now quoting Hosea? Are you a picker/chooser? Are you faking belief in the Natural Law religion and now cherry picking cool phrases from the bible? Pray tell . . . enlighten me.
Ad if you are wondering what the heck causes me to cast off mental flagella like I do; it is because when one deconstructs a 'system' to nothing, all that is left is a mind. When a mind joins with another mind in thought, they need a system to speak together. That 'system' needs 2 open minds to communicate, otherwise one of them dictates their system to the other. I would rather shout into the wind, as opposed to being a dictator.
I am many things, while concurrently being nothing.
I have no system.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Ha, Weeble, unbound ...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/02/12 05:34 AM
Ha, come to think of it, there's a fifth 'point' of yours: In fact, your 'solution', memehunter. Since you did not really object to my roundup of your four basic 'points', I will summarize them again for the sake of completeness, as they were re-presented again and again and again in literally hundreds of your feedbacks:
1) Jews are evil. Maybe not all of them, all of the time, but there's 'something special' about them that makes you feel uneasy and troubled.
2) Interest is evil. Even if two parties agree freely to a contract that involves interest, it is evil in itself.
3) Austrian economists generally don't see interest as evil, and some Austrians were/are Jewish, like von Mises and Rothbard.
4) From 'points' 1-3 it follows that Austrian Economcs is evil and/or 'satanic' - a wicked fraud to maintain (Jewish) elite rule.
In what I'd call 'point 4b' you delighted this feedback-section with your confession that you're 'proud of being ignorant' about the very subject of your feedbacks and articles.
And now your 'solution' - again, peddled incessantly in your feedbacks and articles, all the while you write that 'one does not need to be an expert on Austrianism to show these points':
5) To overcome evil Jewish elite rule, evil interest and evil 'Austrian' elite enablers, all one has to do is print 'debt/interest-free' fiat-money out of thin air, restrict gold to be a store of value only - enforced with a 'minimum of coercion', that is, and all will be well ever after.
As you can see, memehunter, one can outline your basic 'points' in ONE feedback or diversify them ad nauseam. Either way, one arrives at the 'need' to use force to coerce others.
Now, how on earth come you think you and your greenbacker friends have any right whatsoever to force others to comply to your 'solution'?
Reply from The Daily Bell
"Either way, one arrives at the 'need' to use force to coerce others."
This is the crux of it ...
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 04/02/12 04:41 AM
IB: 'What do you think people have done for 3,000 years... ???
Prove to me that the majority of people throughout the world DO NOT consider gold to be the best commodity to store value. Prove to me that they DID NOT come by this decision freely and voluntarily.
Until then, you are just full of hot air.'
Please relax, Ingo.
I NEVER suggested that people did not consider gold to be the best commodity to store value for thousands of years. Of course they did - for good reasons. And in most cases they did chose to do so freely. That's exactly what I'm talking about: FREE CHOICE
However, if some people at some point decide that coconuts or liquid Tide or whatever suits them better ...
Click to view link
... and as long as they don't FORCE others to accept their money or use it too, I'd be fine with that.
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/01/12 09:30 PM
Oops! At the end, I meant to say: "This new money needs to be created by a group that knows they are NOT the centre of the universe."
I can see how the exclusion of that word could throw me in the same mirror-bottomed boat as you! Forgive me for that blunder, but I could have sworn that word was there the last time I looked. Anyway, what's done is done. You have to admit, had I worded the sentence properly, it would have ended with a bang. NOT?
Ah yes, one little word that makes me seem like I have a big head or something. I don't have a big head; I just want to now the truth about the things I think about. That mistake shows you I'm half human, right?
Good thing I won't be part of that group. Can you imagine having the weight of the world on your shoulders like that?
Hang on a minute . . . let's say it was a Freudian slip, and it was my destiny to word the sentence EXACTLY the way it was put. I'll run with it to see whare it goes . . .
The group that knows they are the centre of the universe, also knows that the 7 billion others that will benefit from honest money are also the centre of the universe, since all people are created equal. With that ancient knowledge, what needs to happen is a little magic.
Man, I want to be a part of THAT . . . it takes some of the pressure off!
Next: Natural Law, Hosea and steadfastness.
Posted by Bischoff on 04/01/12 09:28 PM
There is little argument about reproductive force of nature. Every first year law student is asked to supply the answer to the following:
"A" loans a pregnant mare to "B". The mare has the colt while on loan to "B". Whose property is the colt, that of "A" or that of "B"... ???
The correct answer to the question essentially defines what is known as "natural interest".
If you cannot place your savings into an investment providing a return to at least match the "natural interest rate", you can always invest into a stud farm or a cattle ranch.
I ask you, is "natural interest", i.e. the reproductive power of animal husbandry, inherently evil... ??? That question came up at the Council of Constance in 1242. The question was answered by the Church of Rome definitively by pronouncing "natural interest" to be natural and not evil. An interest charge to match the natural interest rate was judged not to be usery and was allowed to be applied to earnings on savings invested.
People could save,as long as gold was the standard in the monetary system, i.e. earned redeemable paper currency could be used to buy Gold Bonds which would pay a return to match at least the "natural interest rate". When competition for peoples' savings was strong, the interest rate on bonds would slightly increase. When savers competed for investments, the interest rate on bonds would slightly decline. However, the interest rate movement would be so small that no arbitrage was possible, and therefore no secondary bond market existed under the gold standard.
Once gold was removed from the monetary system, people could no longer save. A debt based currency cannot be saved. Investment of debt based currency requires special training to pick the right investment vehicles. That is kind of training provided by the business schools today. However, at no time will these schools teach anything about natural interest, or about the gold standard.
Since you cannot save without a gold standard, savers cannot set the interest rate through competing for investments. The interest rate is set for them by a special committee of central bankers in Washington, DC known as the FOMC. Seven wise men on the committee "know" what the prime interest rate should be. Now, that the prime interest rate is set at 1/8% in order to save the banks from insolvency, the saver gets royally screwed by the ultra low Fed interest rates. 1/8% interest is way below the normal 2.5% to 3% of natural interest. Artificially setting the interest rates by a committee friendly to the banks presents a huge problem. That's the thing people should be upset about. Wallowing in the silly assertion that interest is inherently evil, accomplishes nothing.
There is so much foolishness put forth on the subject of Money, Currency and Interest, it is down right frightening.
-- Hosea 4:6 "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge."
Posted by Bischoff on 04/01/12 08:13 PM
Again, as usually, your mind is not very agile.
I brought up Copernicus not for his scientific assertion, but for the steadfastness by which he held it. Regardless of the total opposition to his idea by the catholic church, and practically everyone else, he held steadfast to the idea that the earth turns around the sun. He was proven right in the end.
I am holding steadfast to the idea that RBD currency is supported by natural law, and that it is superior to any other currency. Adam Smith put the idea into a doctrine. It was practiced for hundreds of years, until it was sabotaged. Without doubt, RBD currency will be proven to be the best currency in the end.
"Barter is the fundamental way to trade, but it is slow and inefficient. Try putting a couple of pigs in your pocket. Money is only a means to an end . . . the end being more efficient trading. Money that takes debt to create is a scam. That construct is flawed, as we all know."
BRAVO... ... !!!! Give that man a cupidoll... .
Of course, even a clock is right twice a day. Now, here comes the idiocy, dear fellow readers:
"Money needs to be created at cost (cost of printing) and given away equally to 7 billion people . . . problem solved. This new money needs to be created by a group that knows they are the centre of the universe . . . keeps everyone humble . . ya know?"
Often the comments by Weebley are so outrageously dumb, that you have to suspect he is putting you on. Nevertheless, the DB seems to find usefulness in such psycho babble. Useful for whom, I ask you... ... .????
Posted by Summer on 04/01/12 07:59 PM
If *distortion* of the economy is bad because it leads to unjust wealth transfer then how on earth can interest be ignored?!
80% of all wealth is transferred to 10% of the population. Anyone who ignores this is knowingly or unknowingly 'with them' - elites.
Interest is theft by stealth. Mirza Tahir Ahmed:
Click to view link
There is no need for coercion to get rid of interest, we need education and awareness. It is obviously an inequitable device. Anyone looking at the effect on the flow of wealth with honesty would reject interest *on principle* (unless they are beneficiaries of the system or ignorant) as with theft.
Interest-debt kills. John Pilger: Click to view link . It matters not if two parties agree to use interest, people will suffer. Just as two parties may decide to steal from someone else it doesn't make it OK.
But if people are happy with 80% wealth transfer then they deserve the current state of affairs - IMF, bank control of politics, euro-debt crisis bank bailouts and derivatives. Enjoy!
Posted by Agent Weebley on 04/01/12 07:38 PM
Before I begin, I would say you comparing yourself to Copernicus, who, as Wikipedia puts it, "developed a heliocentric cosmology which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe," is bizarre, as you are actually placing yourself at the centre of the monetary universe. But hey, I see things in a lightly different light than most.
Barter is the fundamental way to trade, but it is slow and inefficient. Try putting a couple of pigs in your pocket.
Money is only a means to an end . . . the end being more efficient trading.
Money that takes debt to create is a scam. That construct is flawed, as we all know.
Money needs to be created at cost (cost of printing) and given away equally to 7 billion people . . . problem solved. This new money needs to be created by a group that knows they are the centre of the universe . . . keeps everyone humble . . ya know?
Posted by Bischoff on 04/01/12 05:43 PM
It seems so much more useful to discuss the ideas of von Mises and Rothbard, which can clearly be shown to be wanting, rather than to get into a discussion of why certain views are held. Mises on the gold standard can easily be attacked on its logic, as can Rothbard on his 100% gold backing.
Just because there is great notoriety about a Keynes, a Friedman, a Marx, an Engel, a von Mises and a Rothbard, it doesn't mean that they have the corner on reality, logic or reason. To declare them infallible, because a large portion of the population has been propagandized to accept their ideas, doesn't make them infallible at all. Look at the policies instituted based on the theories of the afore mentioned geniuses, and you'll find that they all bombed. Everyone of them.